The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) cannot impose fines on motorists over third-party motor vehicle insurance without a court order. The judgment, delivered on Friday by Justice Hauwa Yilwa, clarified the limits of enforcement powers held by the two agencies, distinguishing between their authority to ensure compliance and their lack of legal mandate to sanction offenders directly.
The ruling followed a suit filed by activist-lawyer Deji Adeyanju, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/291/2025, against the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the FRSC. Adeyanju sought judicial interpretation of whether the police could enforce third-party insurance, impose fines during routine stop-and-search operations, and whether such enforcement infringed on constitutional rights. He also asked the court to determine if enforcement powers rested solely with the FRSC.
The case was brought under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, and provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007.
Justice Yilwa held that while both the police and the FRSC are empowered to enforce compliance with third-party insurance laws, they lack statutory authority to impose fines. The court emphasized that sanctioning powers rest with the judiciary, not enforcement agencies.
Counsel to the applicant, Marvin Omorogbe, explained that the court’s ruling was categorical: “The police and the road safety may enforce compliance but outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners.” He added that the judgment restrained the Inspector-General of Police, the Police Force, and all FRSC officers from imposing fines on motorists.
Adeyanju welcomed the ruling, describing it as a victory against what he termed extortion by enforcement agencies. “The sole reason why we came to court is that we wanted the court to make a positive declaration that the police and the road safety do not have the right to impose fines on any Nigerian over motor vehicle insurance. And we have succeeded,” he said. He noted that although the court did not strip the police entirely of enforcement powers, the pronouncement on the limits of those powers was significant.
Adeyanju urged Nigerians to use the judgment to assert their rights and seek legal remedies when necessary. He argued that the ruling would restore confidence among motorists and curb arbitrary practices during stop-and-search operations.
On the other hand, counsel to the defendants, Victor Okoye, indicated dissatisfaction with the judgment and signaled plans to appeal. He argued that the suit was improperly constituted, noting that the Inspector-General of Police was named instead of the Nigeria Police Force as a corporate entity. He also contended that the issues raised were contentious and unsuitable for resolution through an originating summons, which is typically reserved for straightforward matters of law.
Okoye stressed that jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication and maintained that the court should have addressed the preliminary objection before proceeding to judgment. “We envisage that we will likely challenge the proceedings at the Court of Appeal to determine if the court ought to have determined a case where the originating summons is incompetent,” he said.
Despite his objections, Okoye acknowledged that the judgment affirmed the concurrent powers of the police and FRSC to stop, search, and verify compliance with insurance requirements, even though they cannot impose fines.
The ruling carries significant implications for motorists and enforcement agencies across Nigeria. By clarifying that only courts can impose fines, the judgment limits the scope of roadside enforcement and addresses concerns about arbitrary penalties. It also reinforces the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that judicial authority is respected in matters of sanctioning.
For motorists, the decision provides legal protection against on-the-spot fines often demanded during routine checks. For enforcement agencies, it underscores the need to align practices with statutory provisions and avoid overstepping their mandate.
With the police signaling an appeal, the case is likely to move to the Court of Appeal, where the scope of enforcement powers may be further tested. In the meantime, the ruling stands as a precedent, restraining both the police and FRSC from imposing fines without judicial backing.
The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the judgment is upheld or modified, but for now, the decision marks a significant step in defining the boundaries of enforcement authority in Nigeria’s road safety and insurance framework.
